Acknowledgements: This talk draws heavily on the work of the
following scholars who are likely to see some of the ideas - and
occasionally some of their words - in it. If footnotes were
included, there would be many indeed.

George Washington and slavery is a potentially explosive topic.
To some on the right wing of the political spectrum focusing on
the topic indicates the speaker is probably about to make another
foray in the effort to denigrate and bring down one of America's
great heroes. To some on the left wing of the political spectrum
anything less than a strong denunciation of Washington for owning
slaves demonstrates the speaker's moral obtuseness and lack of
racial sensitivity.

It is an undeniable fact - and America's greatest tragedy -
that as she proclaimed to the world that all men are created equal
and entitled to liberty - she at the same time held 1/5 of her
population in lifelong slavery. George Washington led America to
freedom while at the same time personally owning hundreds of
slaves. In recent years, a virulent form of popular history has
emerged, one that combines genuine moral outrage, a smug
condescension, and more than a little dramatic license to arraign
the dead white males who fathered the nation." Fairly recently, a
New Orleans school named after GW changed its name because of a
new edict declaring that no New Orleans schools could be named
after slaveholders. The Father of Our Country was deemed unworthy
to have a local school named after him.

In his novel, The Human Stain, Philip Roth notes that one of
"America's oldest communal passion, historically perhaps its most
treacherous and subversive pleasure. . ." is to indulge in the
"ecstasy of sanctimony." [You feel good by being morally
superior - whether from the right [against Clinton,
abortion] or the left [environment, poor, racism,
etc.]

While indulging in the "ecstasy of sanctimony" may be more
prevalent today, it is certainly not new. After the war a Quaker
leader [Robert Pleasants] wrote Washington asking him how
could he "keep a number of People in absolute Slavery, who were by
nature equally entitled to freedom as himself." He added, "O
Remember, I beseech thee that 'God will not be mocked.'" In 1788,
a Massachusetts Gazette reported, "He wielded the sword in defense
of American liberty, yet at the same time was, and is to this day,
living upon the labours of several hundreds of miserable
Africans." As President, Washington received a letter which read
in part, "Ages to come will read with Astonishment that the man
who was foremost to wrench the rights of America from the
tyrannical grasp of Britain was among the last to relinquish his
own oppressive hold of poor unoffending negroes. In the name of
justice what can induce you thus to tarnish your own well earned
celebrity and to impair the fair features of American liberty with
so foul and indelible a blot." Indeed, the author argued that GW
was "more culpable than the callow-hearted planter" because he
'persevered in a system which his conscience told him was wrong.'
The fiery 19th century abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison, who
saw things as either good or evil, confidently assured his
listeners that even as he spoke, George Washington was writhing in
the flames of eternal damnation, his just desert for the sin of
slaveholding. In Garrison's view, nothing else he did could
eradicate the fact that he was a "man stealer" and thus deserving
of hell.

My purpose today is neither to condemn nor to praise George
Washington on his handling of the issue of slavery, but try to
shed some light on how he acted and why he acted as he did. The
story is more complex and revealing than one might expect. In
examining it, we get a better glimpse of the man behind the myth,
and incidentally are introduced to some of the men and women who
labored for him. Suddenly, they are no longer simply faceless
numbers but real people facing their own difficult dilemma. George
Washington emerges not as a cardboard hero [or villain]
but as a conflicted man who increasingly came to abhor slavery and
yet found himself in the midst of a dilemma that seemed to have no
satisfactory solution either for himself or for the nation he
loved. At the heart of the dilemma was the inherent contradiction
of treating a person as property. This core contradiction of
slavery - of treating persons as things - accounted for much of
the complexity in Washington's relations with his slaves and
ultimately led him to confess it was "the only unavoidable subject
of regret." Examining Washington's approach to slavery "reveals
the unresolvable problems of race relations in the era of the
American Revolution and the birth of the republic." The story is,
in the final analysis, a tragic one, as is the long history of
racial injustice, but it is also a story of growth with rays of
light and hope.

In my discussion, I would like to focus on three main
aspects:

What kind of slaveholder was George Washington? To what degree
was he a racist and how did he compare to the age in which he
lived? And, finally, if GW's opposition to slavery increased over
time, why didn't he do more than he did to publicly attack the
institution?

Slavery was an intricate part of George Washington's entire
life. It must be remembered that Washington, like other Virginia
planters, continued to live with slavery - and off of slavery. He
became a slave owner at the age of 11 when he inherited about 10
or 11 slaves as a result of his father's untimely death in 1743.
During the remainder of his life, he owned increasingly larger
numbers of slaves, and by the time of his own death in 1799 there
were approximately 316 slaves at Mount Vernon.

George Washington was born, reared, and lived in Virginia, a
place were fully 40% of the population were slaves for life, and
where slavery was an intricate and crucial aspect of the
plantation economy and social system. So crucial was slavery to
life of the wellborn in Virginia that a visitor in 1751 noted, it
"is morally impossible" to live in Virginia without slaves.
Virginia was a hierarchical society where it was widely accepted
that some men were born and reared to rule and others to be ruled.
"A deep respect for hierarchy infused the very marrow of the early
modern British American world, and at its core lay the authority
of the father-figure in his household." While it may be trite, it
is nevertheless true. George Washington was a "man of his time,"
and we cannot lift him out of his century. My colleague at GMU,
the African-American Pulitzer Prize winner, Roger Wilkins, in his
new book, Jefferson's Pillow, while barely containing his rage at
the evils of slavery, is scholar enough to note, "Surely I cannot
on the one hand argue that cultural forces can injure
[blacks] and on the other refuse to recognize and make
allowances for just such cultural injuries in the lives of the
founders."

George Washington, like other men of his time, was deeply
influenced - and to some degree damaged - by the slave culture in
which he was reared. It was a time when common soldiers were
flogged routinely, children could be hanged, and gentlemen put
into prison for debt. The Slave Code current in Washington's youth
declared that "if any slave shall happen to die [as a
result] of his or her correction, by his or her owner, no
person shall undergo any prosecution for the same." Blacks were
virtually universally viewed as degraded human beings.
Approximately 99% of the blacks living in Virginia prior to the
American Revolution were slaves.

During the pre-Revolutionary years, Washington's views
toward slavery were [as far as the record reveals]
conventional, reflecting those of a typical Virginia planter of
his time. He undoubtedly shared the "engrained sense of racial
superiority" so common among white Virginians and did not
emotionally identify with the slaves' plight. There is an extant
letter from Washington [1766] that leaves a flavor of the
nature of the institution and his rather routine acceptance of
it.

"Sir: With this letter comes a Negro (Tom) which I beg the
favour of you to sell, in any of the Islands you may go to, for
whatever he will fetch, and bring me in return for him: one hhd of
best molasses, one of best Rum, one barrel of Lymes if good and
cheap, and the residue, much or little in good ole
spirits That this Fellow is both a rogue and a Runaway I
shall not pretend to deny. But . . . he is exceedingly healthy,
strong and good at the Hoe which gives me reason to hope he
may, with your good management sell well (if kept clean and trim'd
up a little when offered for sale [I] must beg the
favor of you (lest he should attempt his escape) to keep him
hand-cuffed till you get to Sea."

Fortunately, this is only transaction of this kind to be
recorded in GW's correspondence, and there are many other later
entries and incidents that reveal a more humane and caring master.
The story is complicated because GW's views about MV and his
slaves was an uneasy mixture of commercial and paternalistic
attitudes. These aspects were often in conflict with one another
and led to inconsistent action. Indeed, Washington's erratic
mixture of sternness and indulgence inevitably created a certain
amount of chaos in plantation management.

Washington tended to view slavery as a commercial
enterprise. It was simply an integral part of his desire to make
profits from tobacco and grain cultivation and keep debts to a
minimum. In this sense, MV slaves were his chattels, his human
property. The language he used in buying them might be applicable
to livestock. He wished "all of them to be strait limbed, & in
every respect strong and healthy with good Teeth." As the
historian John Ferling notes in his often perceptive but
essentially critical study of GW, "He was not moved to express
hatred or love or empathy for his chattel. They were simply
business propositions, and his comments regarding these
unfortunate people were recorded with about as much passion as
were his remarks on wheat rust or the efficacy of a new
fertilizer."

GW unquestionably assumed that his slaves would "be at their
work, as soon as it was light, [and] work till it was
dark." Each bondsman "must be made to do a sufficient day's work."
GW's goal for his bondsmen and women was explicit: "that every
laborer (male and female) does as much in 24 hours as their
strength, without endangering their health or constitution, will
allow." Or again: "It has always been my aim to feed & cloath
them well, & be careful of them in sickness - in return, I
expect such labour as they ought[!] to render." [Note
the choice of the word, "Ought"] However unfair and
unreasonable it might seem to us [after all the slaves don't
have any choice in the arrangement], it can help us understand
GW's position if we realize that he thought that he had entered
into a type of "patriarchal contract" in which his slaves owed him
service in return for care. Reciprocal obligations & duties
between master and servant were the essence of patriarchalism that
GW accepted. GW saw himself as the provider - he would protect and
care for his dependents. He would give them "everything that is
proper for them" and prevent "as far as vigilance can - all
irregularities and improper conduct."

Washington often thought he, not his servants, suffered from
the arrangement. Following a fire, Washington wrote what I think
is a very revealing letter to his plantation manager, "I wish you
would inform him [Isaac] that I sustain injury enough by
their idleness, they need not add to it by their carelessness."
It is GW, not his servants, who "sustain injury" from the system
of slavery. Thinking in these terms, he was eager to get as much
back for his investment as possible. When in Philadelphia, he
learned that the sewing women at Mount Vernon produced nine shirts
each week when Martha supervised them and only six in her absence,
Washington had his manager warn them "that what has been done,
shall be done by fair or foul means" or he would send them off to
be common laborers on his outlying farms (Hirschfeld, p. 63).

He lamented, "Lost labour can never be regained," and overseers
were urged to be constantly vigilant and to always remember that
the slaves were working for GW. In his words, "I expect to reap
the benefit of the labour myself." [He complained that Peter
who was responsible for riding around the plantation to check on
the stock was usually engaged "in pursuits of other objects
more advancive of his own pleasure than my benefit." Again the
interesting point is that GW can complain about this while most of
us would sympathize with Peter's actions.]

Washington, however, to his constant and growing frustration,
found it was not easy in fact to reap the benefits of their labor.
Indeed, he increasingly viewed the system of slave labor as
inherently inefficient. He noted, "Every place where I have been
there are many workmen, and little work." [It might be
mentioned in passing that GW was a hard man to work for and he
makes constant complaints about the quality of his laborers -
white as well as black] He had lots of complaints. Slaves
feigned illness, destroyed equipment, were often idle and
regularly stole his corn, meat, apples, and liquor. GW lamented
that unless watched the slaves would get 2 glasses of wine for
every one served in the mansion. Everything not nailed down was in
danger of being stolen. And how could it be nailed down when even
the nails were disappearing? "I cannot conceive how it is
possible for 6,000 12 penny nails could be used in the Corn house
at River Plantation, but of one thing I have no great doubt and
that is, if they can be applied to other uses, or converted into
cash, rum, or other things, there will be no scruple in doing it."
[from Jean Lee]

GW tried hard to thwart the robberies. Overseers were to visit
slave quarters at unexpected times, lie in wait along the roads to
catch anyone making off with goods from the plantation, and turn
in broken and worn tools and utensils before receiving
replacements. Nails were to be rationed, and comparison made
between the number issued to carpenters and the number actually
hammered into beams and planks. All of the sheep from the 5
plantations were to be brought together into one herd and watched
constantly. They were to be sheared before they were washed.
"Otherwise," he woried, "I shall have a larger part of the Wool
stolen if washed after it is sheared." At one point GW even
ordered that most of the dogs belonging to slaves at MV be shot
because they served as sentinels for night raids on plantation
stores. He further ordered, "if any Negro [still] presumes
under any pretense whatsoever, to preserve, or bring one into the
family. . . he shall be severely punished, and the dog hanged."

In his effort to achieve a disciplined work force,
Washington occasionally resorted to corporal punishment, although
there is no record that he personally ever administered it. There
is, however, the testimony of the perceptive wife of the British
ambassador, Henrietta Liston. Acknowledging GW's consistent
control of his passions on public occasions, she noted that "in
private and particularly with his Servants, its violence sometimes
broke out." Another visitor was shocked at the way the President
spoke to his slaves - "as differently as if he had been quite
another man, or had been in anger." One of GW's former slaves much
later recalled that GW was "exact and strict" and might complain
"in language of severity." GW justified the occasional severity.
In his words, "if the Negros will not do their duty by fair means,
they must be compelled to do it." Or again, "must have by fair
means or by coercion (the first is vastly more agreeable to me)
[Here is another example of the "patriarchal contract" GW had
entered] When confronted by a particularly recalcitrant
bondsman he simply directed his manager to "give him a good
whippin". Occasionally, female slaves felt the whip as well. He
wrote his manager, "Your treatment of Charlotte was very proper,
and if She, or any other of the Servants will not do their duty by
fair means, or are impertinent, correction (as the only
alternative) must be administered." His directions regarding one
runaway perhaps represents his attitude in general: "Let Abram get
his deserts when taken, by way of example; but do not trust to
[Hyland] Crow to administer it as he is swayed more by
passion than judgment in all his corrections." Or again, "As for
Waggoner Jack, try further correction accompanied by admonition
and advice." [Admonition and advice along with close
supervision was Washington's mantra] Apparently, in this case
it did not work, for GW later wrote his plantation manager to warn
a young slave named Ben that if he did not shape up, "I will ship
him off as I did Waggoner Jack for the West Indies where he will
have no opportunity to play such pranks." In a final example, he
had his manager tell Muclus, "if his pride [!] is not a
sufficient stimulus to excite him to industry, & admonition
has no effect on him, that I have directed you to have him
severely punished and placed under one of the Overseers as a
common hoe negro." Interestingly, GW recognized that with a few of
his servants, whipping was counter-productive. About Will French
he noted, "Harsh treatment will not do with him. You had better
therefore let him piddle, and in this way (thought I believe
little trust is to be placed in him) get what you can out of
him."

There is some dispute about the living conditions of the
slaves at Mount Vernon as the evidence and testimony are in
conflict. Certainly, they did not live well. One visitor to Mount
Vernon [a Polish nobleman] was shocked by the living
quarters of Washington's slaves referring to them as "huts,"
adding "for one can not call them by the name of houses. They are
more miserable than the most miserable of the cottages of our
peasants. The husband and wife sleep on a mean pallet, the
children on the ground; a very bad fireplace, some utensils for
cooking." GW himself seemed to acknowledge their very rudimentary
condition, for when he later sought Europeans to work Mount
Vernon's fields, he admitted that the slave quarters at MV "might
not be thought good enough for the workmen or day laborers" of
England. Clothing and blankets were carefully rationed. A woman
would receive an extra blanket if she had a child, but if the
child died, the woman would not get a new blanket for herself but
was to use the one given to her child. On clothing for the
children, another French nobleman declared, the Negro quarters
"swarm with pickaninnies in rags that our beggars would scorn to
wear." [This might be from 19th century] The slaves'
rations, consisting chiefly of maize, herring, and occasionally
salt meat, must have been at least on occasion rather meager, for
GW's slaves at least once took the extraordinary step of
petitioning their master, claiming they received an inadequate
supply of food.

Perhaps the above description is a bit too harsh.
[Limited and conflicting testimony makes it difficult to
assess the situation with confidence.] Certainly, others wrote
in a more positive light, and GW had a reputation as a
comparatively humane and kind master. One French visitor noted
that the "slaves were well fed, well clothed, and required to do
only a moderate amount of work" while another Frenchmen observed
the approximately 50 slaves on River Farm quarters were "warmly
lodged chiefly in houses of their own building." The Polish
visitor who criticized the poor housing still noted the gardens
and chickens and averred that Washington treated his slaves "far
more humanely than do his fellow citizens of Virginia. Most of
those gentlemen give to their Blacks only bread water and blows."
If a part of Washington disliked spending money on things like
clothes, blankets, medicine, and food, [and he was
characteristically careful of how he spent money in all aspects of
his life], strong paternalistic elements also influenced his
outlook and actions.

While Washington never referred to his slaves as his
children, he did refer to them as part of his family. [And
virtually never as slaves - they were usually my servants or my
Negroes or my people or my black labourers] Washington
recognized that slaves experienced the same range of emotions as
the unenslaved and attempted to make accommodations where
possible. Whatever their legal status as human chattel, Washington
knew they were human beings. He recognized the validity of slave
marriages and became increasingly concerned for slave families and
their personal relationships and in his dislike of splitting up
slaves who had established such personal and familial ties.
[In his words, "To disperse families I have an utter
aversion." Or again, "It is against my inclination to hurt
the feelings of those unhappy people by a separation of man and
wife, or of families."] In short, Washington realized a
paternalistic relationship involved mutual obligations.

Throughout his adult years, George Washington was always very
concerned with his reputation as a man of honor and fairness and
how people viewed him. His orders to his farm managers make
apparent that he was eager to avoid any legitimate criticism of
his conduct as a master. In writing to one plantation manager, he
was crystal clear: "In the most explicit language I desire they
may have plenty; for I will not ... lye under the imputation of
starving my negros and thereby driving them to the necessity of
thieving to supply the deficiency." [GW said he would give
more, but if he did so, they would sell it, not consume
it]

Dennis Pogue, MV's archaeologist has studied the remains found
in the slave quarters and concludes, "Taken together, the
archaeological evidence of the slave life at MV suggests a
possibly less-controlled existence than indicated by the usual
stereotypical view of slavery. The diet was more diverse, and
therefore probably more healthful, than previously believed. Bones
of such wild fowl as quail, duck, goose and turkey, such wild
animals as deer, squirrel, rabbit, and opossum and such
non-schooling fish as pickerel, gar & bluegill were recovered.
The slaves were able to hunt [at least some were], fish,
raise poultry and tend gardens to supplement their food
allotment." It might surprise modern readers to learn that GW
allowed some his slaves to own firearms - and even provided
ammunition for them [undoubtedly to hunt game for his
table.]

Washington was also sensitive on the issue of working slaves
when they were ill. He insisted, "I never wish my people to work
when they are really sick." Writing his manager, he stated, "It is
foremost in my thoughts, to desire you will be particularly
attentive to my Negroes in their sickness, and to order every
Overseer positively to be so likewise; for I am sorry to observe
that the generality of them view these poor creatures in scarcely
any other light than they do a draft horse or ox, neglecting them
as much when they are unable to work instead of comforting and
nursing them when they lie upon a sickbed."

The stereotypical image of slaves moving in lock step to
bellowed commands does not apply to Mount Vernon. Throughout his
life Washington remained particularly thinned skinned and
sensitive to criticism - even to criticisms made by his
African-American slaves. It led him to act in ways one might not
expect the Lord of the plantation to act. For example, he wanted
certain things given to the slaves because he did not want his
feelings "hurt" by slave complaints which he admitted would make
him "uneasy." During 1787, his need for a bricklayer made him buy
Neptune only to find that "he seems to a great deal disconcerted
on account of a wife which he says he has .This also
embarrasses me, as I am unwilling to hurt the feelings of anyone."
While others were discontinuing the practice of providing rum at
certain times, GW declared, as his "people have always been
accustomed to it, a hogshead of rum must be purchased." He
commented that his people were still at the races - as if there is
not much he could do about it. [Note implications of
reciprocal obligations] There are examples of the blacks
successfully resisting pressure to move their houses on the
outlying farms, and they persuaded GW, against his desire, to
raise more corn because as GW put it, they "cannot do without it."
Once low on sweet potatoes, GW purchased some from his slaves. One
former slave, a carpenter by the name of Sambo, [who had
deserted to the British in 1781 but was recaptured after Yorktown
in Philadelphia] recalled that while GW was his master, he
would still not borrow Sambo's small boat without asking
permission and would always put it back exactly in the spot from
which he borrowed it even if the President had to drag it 20 yards
due to a change of tide. Such vignettes reveal the complexity and
ambiguity of relations between GW and his bondsmen. They were
people and as such an accommodation of some sort must be
reached.

Washington recognized the power of the slaves to influence
the whites around them. He complained about an early farm manager
[Anthony Whiting] who "finding it troublesome to instruct
the Negros, and to compel them to the practice of his modes, . .
. slided into theirs." He wanted to keep poor whites "as separate,
and as distinct as possible from the Negroes, who want no
encouragement to mix with, and become too familiar (for no good
purpose) with these kinds of people." He warned Sally Green, the
daughter of one of GW's long-time white servants, not to open a
store if she wanted continuing support from him as he feared it
"would be no more than a receptacle for stolen produce, by the
Negros."

The Master of Mount Vernon worked closely with his slaves and
knew them well -at least at a surface level. When a group of four
slaves escaped from Mount Vernon in 1761, he provided the
newspaper with surprisingly detailed information about the
fugitives, noting such things as scars, clothing, speech patterns,
etc. He was particularly close to some of the house slaves, most
of who were mulattos. Briefly introducing a few of them: William
"Billy" Lee; Ona Judge; Hercules; and Christopher Sheels may help
illustrate how complex the relationship might be between master
and slave. While sometimes showing Washington in a less than
favorable light, it allows us to see his black servants as
individuals whose desires sometimes led to conflict with their
Master.

Billy Lee (or Will as he also was commonly called) was
without a doubt the most famous slave of the eighteenth century.
Washington acquired Billy, then a teenager, in 1768. Billy and his
new owner soon became inseparable, with the young slave
accompanying Washington on his many forays across the Virginia
countryside for pleasure, foxhunting, or business trips to
Alexandria, Fredericksburg, and Williamsburg. He followed
Washington throughout the American Revolution as his personal
valet, and his skill as a daring horseman equaled his renowned
Master's expertise. [GWPC left a stirring account of Will's
fearlessness and daring as a horseman] It is clear that
Washington became extremely fond of Billy who he listed first on
his 1786 inventory of slaves and described him with the fancy
title, "Val de Chambre." Examples abound.

When injury made it impossible for Billy to properly attend
to him, the President could not deny his request to come to
Philadelphia anyway. As Washington's personal secretary, Tobias
Lear, expressed it, "if he [Billy] is still anxious to
come on here the President would gratify him, tho he will be
troublesome. He has been an old and faithful servant." Earlier, in
1784 Washington appealed to Clement Biddle, his purchasing agent
in Philadelphia, to arrange to have Lee's wife, Margaret Thomas
Lee, sent to Virginia: "The Mulatto fellow William who has been
with me all the War is attached (married he says) to one of his
own colour a free woman, who, during the War was also of my
family??She has been in an infirm state of health for sometime,
and I had conceived that the connection between them had
ceased??but I am mistaken??they are both applying to me to get her
here, and tho' I never wished to see her more, yet I cannot refuse
his request (if it can be complied with on reasonable terms) as he
has lived with me so long & followed my fortunes through the
War with fidility." When Washington died, he remembered Billy in
his last will and testament, giving him the choice of his
immediate freedom or remaining at Mount Vernon. In either case,
he was to have an annuity of thirty dollars [a sizeable
gift] independent of his food and clothes, "as a testimony of
my sense of his attachment to me, and for his faithful services
during the Revolutionary War."

A gloomier picture emerges from the story of Oney [Ona]
Judge who ran away at age 22 in the 1790's. She had attended
Martha Washington since the age of 10, was the daughter of
seamstress Betty, and had herself become a "Perfect Mistress of
her needle." She fled in 1796 from Philadelphia, then to NYC
where she took sail for Portsmouth, NH. GW protracted negotiations
to retrieve her [extending even to the year of his death]
do not reflect well on him. Referring to her as a "mulatto girl"
when she was a young adult [later in an article published in
the mid-19th century she was described as "nearly white" and "very
much freckled" who "might easily pass for a white woman"]. GW
spoke of Ona's "ingratitude," of her leaving "without the least
provocation," of her being treated more "like a child than a
servant," of her being duped by a Frenchman - the classic
rationalizations of an aggrieved master. [GW wrote about the
best way to get her back "If inquiries are made openly, her
seducer (for she is simple and inoffensive herself) would take
alarm and adopt measures (if he has not tired of her) to secrete
or remove her."] Ona responded eloquently that she had left of
her own free will and from "a thirst for compleat freedom." She
expressed affection for the Washington family and said that she
might return to Virginia if she was guaranteed her freedom, but
that she "should rather suffer death than return to Slavery." GW
rejected her proposed bargain: granting her freedom would only
"discontent her fellow servants" and reward bad behavior, setting
a "dangerous precedent." He wanted her put on board a vessel for
Virginia, forcibly if necessary, but surreptitiously so as not to
incite mob action. Ever attentive to his reputation, GW wished
above all to avoid public embarrassment. Ona had her own plans.
Apparently warned by the Governor of New Hampshire, she avoided
capture, married a free mulatto, and settled down to life in NH.
Later she wrote about her escape, the only 18th century Virginia
runaway slave who has left her own account of her actions. At that
point in her life a devout Christian, Ona declared she had "never
received the least mental or moral instruction" while at Mount
Vernon, and the stories of GW's piety and prayers, in so far as
she ever saw or heard while she was his slave, had no foundation
in fact.

Hercules, GW's cook, was a very strong and highly respected
perfectionist who accompanied GW to both NYC and Philadelphia.
Affectionately nicknamed Harkless, he was allowed to sell "slops"
from the presidential kitchen to earn extra money. Apparently, he
used the money to purchase fine clothes. He is described as
wearing white linen, black silk breeches and waistcoat, highly
polished shoes with large buckles, a blue cloth coat with velvet
collar and bright metal buttons, a watch fob and chain, cocked
hat, and gold-headed cane[?]" Hercules absconded in March
1797 rather than go back to Virginia at the end of Washington's
presidency. GW tried to reclaim him but, as in the case of Ona,
he did not want a scene that might damage his reputation. He gave
grudging recognition to the chef's cleverness by warning those
seeking to apprehend him that they must do it by stealth "for if
Herculas was to get the least hint of the design he would elude
all your vigilance." After Hercules escaped, GW admitted he would
have to break his vow and buy another slave as he must have a
cook. Hercules was never recaptured. Later, a visitor to Mount
Vernon conversed with Hercules' six-year-old daughter, Was she not
upset at not seeing her father again? Back shot the reply: "oh!
Sir, I am very glad, because he is free now."

Finally, there is the relationship with Christopher Sheels who
attended Washington in his final illness and received Washington's
last recorded order to one of his servants when the President,
despite his own intense suffering, aware that Christopher had been
standing by his bed for hours, asked him to sit down. Limited as
the information is, the extant record on the relationship between
Christopher and Washington again indicates just how complex and
convoluted the issue of slavery was. At the time of Washington's
death, Christopher was still a young man, born in 1775 or 1776,
son of Alce [Alice], a spinner, and the grandson of Doll,
the first cook for Mount Vernon. In time, Christopher replaced
"Billy" Lee as GW's personal body servant. Two very different
surviving vignettes indicate the complicated relationship between
Washington and Christopher.

The first involved an attack on Christopher by a rabid dog in
1797. Washington's concern was great enough that he might have
allowed himself to be a victim of medical quackery. There was a
"hex-doctor" in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, "celebrated for curing
persons bitten by mad animals." Washington not only allowed
Christopher to travel all the way to Pennsylvania for treatment
but also entrusted him with twenty-five dollars, a very
significant amount of money in the 18th century, to cover his
possible expenses. In his accompanying letter to the physician,
Washington expressed his desire to have Christopher cured. "For
besides the call of Humanity, I am particularly anxious for His
cure, He being my own Body servant." For whatever reason or
reasons, Christopher returned to Mount Vernon cured and declared
he no longer feared being bitten by a rabid dog in the future.
Interestingly, Washington later noted in his ledger that
Christopher returned twelve dollars to him.

Another, darker side of their relationship is indicated in an
incident only months before GW's death. Christopher plotted to run
away from Mount Vernon. What triggered his decision to flee in
1799 when he had a perfect chance to flee with money in his pocket
in 1797 and did not is unknown. Almost certainly his recent
marriage to a slave woman from a neighboring plantation was
pivotal as she was planning to flee with him. Perhaps the recent
marriage of his mother to Charles, a free black man, also
influenced him. At any rate, a chance discovery foiled the plot. A
note discussing the plan was inadvertently dropped, Washington
discovered it, learned of the cabal, and squelched it.
(Interestingly, the presence of the note indicates that
Christopher - as was the case with many of GW's house servants -
was literate). Unfortunately, the surviving record leaves no hint
of what Washington felt upon learning that his personal servant,
on whom he had spent considerable money, wanted to run away.
[Although we can speculate on the basis of his known response
to Ona's flight.] What exchange, if any, occurred between the
two men over the planned escape is lost to history. It is,
however, perhaps significant that even after learning of the plan
to escape, George Washington still kept Christopher as his
personal servant, and Christopher was at his post on December
14th.

[Could mention two other female slaves, Caroline and
Charlotte, who were with him at his death to show the different
relationship GW had. In his listing of his slaves, GW lists
Caroline's husband by first and last name [Peter Hardman],
and lists her 5 children by both name and age. No husband is
listed for Charlotte, whose whipping had been approved by GW nor
are the ages given for her three children.] Probably better
only in discussion.

What was GW's attitude towards his slaves and blacks in
general? Was he a racist? In some ways this is too modern a
question and hard to apply to George Washington's views.

There can be no denying that GW's observations on slavery and
those held in bondage contain many unfortunate comments from a
modern perspective. "Blacks were ignorant and shiftless; they were
careless, deceitful, and liable to act without any qualms of
conscience." Describing Betty, GW lamented that "a more lazy,
deceitful & impudent huzzy" cannot be found in the United
States. On his black carpenters, he declared "there is not to be
found so idle set of Rascals." He recommended keys be left with a
white servant because "I know of no black person about the house
[who] is to be trusted." GW, an elitist by temperament and
upbringing, did have an "engrained sense of racial superiority,"
and did not identify with their plight. As a group, the slaves
seemed different than whites. In a conversation with British
actor, John Bernard, Washington came close to explicitly racist
language in justifying fighting for freedom while maintaining
slavery: "This may seem a contradiction, but it is neither
a crime nor an absurdity. When we profess, as our fundamental
principle, that liberty is the inalienable right of every man, we
do not include madmen or idiots; liberty in their hands would
become a scourge. Till the mind of the slave has been educated to
perceive what are the obligations of a state of freedom, the gift
would insure its abuse."

There are, however, in the vast record of his correspondence no
explicit statements by Washington that blacks were innately
inferior to whites. Even in GW's rather negative quote to the
actor Bernard, GW did not doubt that the mind of the slave could
be educated to receive the gift of freedom - just as he believed
whites could lose the gift. Earlier, he had warned that if the
Americans did not resist British tyranny they would become "as
tame and abject slaves as the blacks we rule over with such
arbitrary sway." In other words, whites and blacks could both
become equally abject slaves or be able to enjoy liberty. As
Joseph Ellis notes, GW "tended to regard the condition of the
black population as a product of nurture rather than nature - that
is he saw slavery as the culprit, preventing the diligence and
responsibility that would emerge gradually and naturally after
emancipation." Speaking of blacks in general he asserted since
they have "no ambition to establish a good name, they are too
regardless of a bad one." The point - slaves had no opportunity to
win respect and earn good reputation - hence their lack of
"ambition" and the inferior quality of their work.

When the black poetess, Phillis Wheatley sent General
Washington a flattering poem, Washington responded, thanking her
for the "elegant Lines," adding that he was undeserving of such
praise. He added he would "be happy to see a person so favourd by
the Muses, and to whom nature has been so liberal and beneficent
in her dispensations." [She did meet him later at his
headquarters]

After some initial hesitation, GW backed the use of black
troops in the American army and came to recognize their utility
for the American cause and may well have been impressed and moved
by their courage and dedication. He used black overseers on his
plantation farms, and for a brief time in the 1780's all 5
overseers at his Mount Vernon farms were black. Davy, for
instance, a mulatto slave trained as a cooper, managed
Washington's Muddy Hole farm for many years. Washington considered
him a capable overseer. He wrote, "Davy carries on his business as
well as the white overseers, and with more quietness than many."
Although he distrusted Davy's honesty regarding livestock, he was
willing to overlook that shortcoming because of Davy's other
contributions. For his efforts as overseer, Davy was rewarded with
special quarters, two or three hogs at killing time, and other
privileges.

When he was in need of good workmen, Washington made clear he
believed they could be of any race or religion. "I am a good deal
in want of a House Joiner and Bricklayer, (who really understand
their profession) and you would do me a favor by purchasing one of
each, for me. . . If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia,
Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews or Christian of an
Sect, or they may be Athiests."

In 1768, GW hired 4 whites to assist his 4 black cradlers
[wheat mowers] and the following year he considered hiring
as few white cradlers as possible & instead confining hired
white labor to the task of raking & binding - i.e. he
countenanced placing whites in subservient positions to a set of
specialized black mowers. [Morgan]

We might wish that GW had been more sympathetic to the plight
of his bondsmen and bondswomen, [He seemed to accept the myth
that many slaves were happy and content]; that he might have
better understood why they were often idle and why they regularly
engaged in theft; that he had better understood that no matter how
well they were treated, they were justified in running away.
Nevertheless, it is still important to remember the times in which
he lived and the way that he had been brought up. I think it is
noteworthy that he never explicitly argued in favor of innate
black inferiority, demonstrated little "Negrophobia," and never
succumbed to favoring large-scale colonization of blacks overseas.

Influenced by the rhetoric of the American Revolution and
constant contact with anti-slavery men from the northern colonies
and states, George Washington became increasingly critical of the
institution of slavery. Tracing the details of his changing views
and the reasons for it may not be possible, but there can be no
denying the change. He became increasingly eager to see slavery
put on the path toward ultimate extinction, although he cautioned,
"Time, education, and patience were needed" in the struggle.

A careful perusal of his post-war and presidential
correspondence produces many such examples. Let me share with you
a few of them.

"I never mean (unless some particular circumstance should
compel me to it) to possess another slave by purchase; it being
among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery
in this country may be abolished by slow, sure, and imperceptible
degrees."

After Lafayette purchased in 1786 a plantation in Cayenne to
carry out his scheme of emancipating slaves, Washington praised
the Frenchman: "Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself
generally into the minds of the people of this country," he wrote,
"but I dispair of seeing it. . . . To set the slaves afloat at
once would, I really believe, be productive of much inconvenience
and mischief; but by degrees it certainly might, and assuredly
ought to be, effected."

"I wish from my soul that the legislature of this state
could see the policy of a gradual abolition of slavery. It would
prevent much mischief."

" No man desires more heartily than I do [the end
of slavery]. Not only do I pray for it on the score of human
dignity, but I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting
out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union."
[And by the way, GW made clear that if slavery caused a break
up of the union, he would cast his lot with the North!]

"The unfortunate condition of the persons whose labour in
part I employed, has been the only unavoidable subject of regret.
To make the Adults among them as easy & comfortable in their
circumstances as their actual state of ignorance and improvidence
would admit; and to lay a foundation to prepare the rising
generation for a destiny different from that in which they were
born, afforded some satisfaction to my mind, and could not I hoped
be displeasing to the justice of the Creator."

These quotes, and others that could be given, while
heartfelt, must be understood in context or one might reasonably
conclude that the first President was an abolitionist. It is
important to note that virtually all of GW's anti-slavery quotes
were expressed in private correspondence or conversation. During
his lifetime, the General never took a public stance against
slavery or called for its end. If his growing opposition to
slavery was genuine and internalized, why did he not take a more
public stand against it and use his unparalleled prestige in the
cause of human freedom? This was a calculated decision by the
President. It was a matter of priorities. A critic might write,
"the only true policy is justice; and he who regards the
consequences of an act rather than the justice of it gives no very
exalted proof of the greatness of his character," but George
Washington knew it was not that simple. In Roger Wilkins
words,

He was "politically shackled by the grating chain [racism
and slavery] that snaked through the new republic and
diminished every life it touched."

The President made the creation and unity of the new nation a
more important priority than attacking slavery. To be honest, in
his mind there was no contest. While he was convinced slavery must
eventually be eradicated, he was convinced that an early attack
upon it would undermine and destroy his beloved union before it
could be properly established. While we can't run the film through
to see what would have happened if a major effort had been mounted
against slavery by Washington and other leaders in the early years
of the republic, virtually all of the founders - and most
historians - agree it would have led to the breakup of the union.
Joseph Ellis in his new book, Founding Brothers, makes clear that
NO ONE in authority in the new federal government was thinking
about doing that and believed an effort to do so seemed
diametrically opposed to remaining a united nation. George
Washington was a "rock-ribbed realist." The establishment of a
permanent union under the new Constitution was extremely
challenging and difficult but possible. He well understood the
remarkably profound affection his countrymen held for him was
crucial to attaining that goal. To dissipate that affection on a
quixotic crusade attacking slavery held no appeal for the Master
of Mount Vernon. Nevertheless, Washington also recognized his
ownership of slaves posed a potential threat to his honor and to
his historical reputation, matters of the utmost importance to
him.

Washington faced this issue head on in his final statement
on slavery in his remarkable last will and testament that he wrote
completely by himself during the summer before his death. Very
significantly, in what was essentially his last act, he freed all
of his personal slaves in his will (by law, he could not free
those belonging to his wife and the Custis estate). Additionally,
he provided for their education as well as declaring those old
slaves and children without parents "be comfortably cloathed and
fed by my heirs." [The estate made the last payment in the
early 1830's for a coffin]. Pushing education for his former
slaves when it was frowned upon sent a strong statement to his
countrymen, present and future. To stress the importance he placed
on his decision, which he put near the beginning of his long will,
immediately after making provisions for his beloved wife, the
President particularly enjoined his executors "to see that this
clause respecting Slaves, and every part thereof be religiously
fulfilled."

Critics note that Washington only freed his slaves at his
death, and even then postponed the emancipation until after his
wife's death.

Personally, I think it is true that GW's solution was not
really a very good one but his options were severely limited.
Since his slaves had intermarried with the Custis slaves, he
postponed the date of their emancipation until after Martha died.
He did so to avoid what he called "the most painful sensations" -
i.e. some family members would be free and others would not.
[By law Martha could not free the Custis slaves even if she
wished to. They were for her use during her lifetime, but were to
be passed on to the Custis heirs upon her death.] Of course,
this delay was strictly for Martha's benefit. Those "painful
sensations" would happen eventually when the emancipation of GW's
slaves was effected. Martha would simply not have to witness them.
Nevertheless, Martha, apparently fearful of her own life, freed
Washington's slaves before her death. Abigail Adams wrote that
Martha told her that "she did not feel as tho her Life were safe
in their hands."

It is I think both interesting and revealing that a man as
thoughtful and careful as GW came up with a solution about freeing
his slaves that his wife ultimately came to believe endangered her
life! This once again simply points out slavery's corroding
characteristics. The reason GW's solution was not very good is
because there simply was no good solution available, try as he
might to find it. "For those who are tempted to criticize GW for
not initiating an emancipation policy for the entire nation, it is
instructive to see that he could not even effectively free 124
men, women, and children on his own plantation in northern
Virginia." [John Riley]The institution of slavery was more
than a match for any individual, even an individual as capable as
GW.

When, Thurgood Marshall, America's first black Supreme Court
justice, was asked how he wished to be remembered, he said, "He
did the best he could with what he had." One might argue that
George Washington did the best he could considering the
circumstances in which he found himself. Of all of the founding
fathers, only George Washington actually freed his slaves. In the
words of one scholar, "it was the last and greatest debt he owed
to his honor." Not only did he free them, but he also rejected
explicit racist language concerning innate inferiority of blacks
and did not dismiss the idea of free blacks living in the United
States in harmony with whites. Interestingly, his views were in
contrast to Thomas Jefferson on all three points. A fourth point
of contrast might be mentioned. "There has never been a credible
tale of George Washington taking advantage of a slave sexually."

And if Washington did not use his great prestige to publicly
attack the institution of slavery, he used that same prestige to
firmly establish a permanent union for the United States based on
a government dedicated to human freedom. He was not able to
complete everything he might have wished to do, but he left us a
united nation and the tools to do so. Given the real world
situation he faced and the crippling impact of slavery and racism
on individuals as well as nations, George Washington's example of
at least partially outgrowing the racist society that produced him
can still inspire and encourage.